Re: New Technical Issues RE: WG last call in progress on VLAN/Priority Draft

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> wrote:
> Why in the name of Turing do we agree to do this for managing our
> RADIUS entities but cannot or will not for the protocol itself?

  That's been the "holy grail" of many people for many years.
Unfortunately, the skills required involve a large subset of each of
coding, protocol design, algorithm analysis, language theory, etc.

  So far, it's been easier for protocol authors to hack something
together than to try to design such a system.  And the math people who
might be able to do it don't feel the pain, so they're not interested.

  Many code projects still use hand-written parsers (no, I don't mean
gcc), because for simple grammars, lexx & yacc are slower and more
complex than a few lines of simple string manipulation in C.

  The last company I worked at had something close to what you
describe.  Unfortunately, using it required that the customers spend
time learning how to use it, which turned out to be too high a hurdle
for many people, even if it did end up solving the problem better than
their existing tools.

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>